Introduction 9The domestic societal perspective shares with domestic institutionalism an
emphasis on developments within national borders but looks first and foremost at
economic and sociopolitical actors rather than political leaders. This view, which
at times is known simply as societal, tends to minimize international constraints
and to emphasize socioeconomic pressures that originate at home. Accordingly,
the determinants of national policy are the demands made by individuals, firms,
and groups rather than independent action by policymakers.
The contending perspectives can once again be illustrated by recalling their
approaches to the example of trade policy tendencies. International political
interpretations would rely on geopolitical trends among states at the global level
to explain changing patterns of trade relations. An international economic view
would emphasize trends in market forces, technologies, and the like that alter the
environment in which governments make trade policy. The domestic institutional
approach focuses on the goals and actions of the government within the national
political system, for which foreign trade can represent ways to help politicians
stay in power. Finally, a domestic societal perspective looks primarily at the pressures
brought to bear on policy by various socioeconomic groups, some desirous of
trade liberalization and others interested in protection from imports.
It should be noted that these simplistic categories hardly describe the nuance
and complexity of actual theoretical approaches; all scholars recognize that the foreign
economic policies of all countries are constrained by both international and domestic—
and by both political and economic—factors. It may indeed be the case that one set
of forces matters more or less in some issue areas rather than others, in some times
rather than others, and in some countries rather than others. In particular, international
geopolitical concerns will presumably have more impact on a small, weak country
surrounded by enemies than a large, powerful nation far from any threat. Similarly,
domestic concerns, whether institutional or societal, may have more effect on policy
in times of great social and political conflict than in less turbulent times.
Nonetheless, analysts of the international political economy do differ in their
interpretations. Rather than being absolute, the disagreements concern relative weights
to be assigned to each set of causes. Some scholars assign primacy to social forces,
others to autonomous state action; some to global factors, others to domestic ones.
These perspectives can lead to widely different explanations of specific events
and general processes within the international political economy. Their differences
have generated numerous debates in the field, many of which are contained in the
readings in this volume.
THREE ALTERNATIVE VIEWS OF
INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY
In addition to the perspectives already mentioned, some scholars attempt to classify
interpretations of global political and economic developments in a somewhat
different manner. Many theories of international political economy can also be
categorized into one of three perspectives: Liberalism, Marxism, and Realism.
Note that in international political economy, advocates of free trade and free markets